Muniz v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:19-cv-01103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Muniz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krause ordered the parties to discuss a possible new hearing after a Supreme Court ruling.
Muniz and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order concerns whether Muniz’s benefits case should be remanded for a new hearing.
What happened
In Muniz v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a Supreme Court decision stating that some Social Security disability applicants could raise a challenge to an administrative law judge’s appointment for the first time in federal court. Muniz’s hearing and decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified, and Muniz had not raised that challenge in this case.
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. Muniz must submit a letter by June 1, 2021, saying whether remand is requested; the Commissioner could respond by June 8, 2021.
Judge Andrew E. Krause warned that declining to request remand at this stage may waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal. The court also stated that declining remand would not harm Muniz before this court or change the timing of its decision on the pending motions if the case remained there.
The detailed version
- Muniz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-01103
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The order discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul. The Supreme Court held that applicants for Social Security disability benefits whose hearings or decisions were handled by an administrative law judge whose appointment did not comply with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause did not have to raise that appointment challenge during their proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising it in federal court.
Muniz’s administrative hearing and the administrative law judge’s decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The order states that Muniz had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case.
Court’s directive
In light of Carr, and to promote efficiency and judicial economy, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner. The proposed remand would provide Muniz with a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge who was different from the judge who previously heard and decided the benefits claim.
Muniz was ordered to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether remand was requested. The letter could request remand and provide legal arguments supporting that request, or state that Muniz did not request remand. If needed, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
Warning about waiver
The court stated that if Muniz chose not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage, that choice might waive the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Muniz before the court and would not affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Disposition
The order directed the parties to confer and required the specified letter submissions. It did not itself remand the case or decide the pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.